Human separateness occupies a central and generative position within the depth-psychological corpus, functioning simultaneously as a developmental achievement, an existential burden, and a spiritual problem to be transcended. Fromm establishes the foundational dialectic: separateness emerges through individuation and is the precondition of selfhood, yet its experience as isolation drives the very hunger for love, union, and connection that animates psychological life. For Fromm, the infant’s dawning sense of separateness inaugurates the need to overcome it by new means; for Yalom, separateness hardens into existential isolation — an irreducible ontological condition that no intimacy fully dissolves, and which confronts the secular individual most nakedly at the threshold of death. Greene and Sasportas read premature separation as producing lifelong longing for merger, while the Hindu and Buddhist voices — Easwaran in particular — treat the felt wall of separateness as Maya, a veil that meditation dissolves to reveal underlying unity. Flores, drawing on Buber, locates in the very I-ness of separateness the condition for genuine I-Thou encounter. The corpus thus holds a productive tension: separateness is both pathology and prerequisite, both the wound and the instrument of genuine relatedness. Therapists working in this tradition must navigate whether to support a client’s differentiation, mourn its loneliness, or point toward modes of connection that do not annihilate it.